06/22/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that public hearing . be scheduled June 27, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. V. Human Rights Council Annual Report--Distributed to Council. George Russell, Chairman of the Human Rights Council, reviewed with Council the procedures which established the present Human Rights Council and the various Human Rights commissions. He said the current annual report was the result of a year of working under the new struc- ture and an evaluation of the results. He called Council's attention to several areas which he felt were very important: 1) the City ordinance; 2) staffing and how it relates to the intregal working of the commis- sions; 3) program evaluation; and 4) recommendations in the report. Mr. lieuallen expressed concern regarding the statement lithe City Council was reluctant to judge the activities and accomplishments." He ques- tioned whether the ordinance specifically outlined evaluation procedures. Mr. Russell replied the ordinance was clear in that the Human Rights Council has a responsibility to evaluate performance of the various commissions and report back to the City Council. He felt the Human I Rights Council had not had sufficient time to allow for those judgments. The commissions had been faced with growing pains and developmental problems which he hoped would be worked out during the next year. Mr. Lieuallen replied it seemed they were being very careful, and said he expected a more critical judgment in the next report. Mr. Russell replied the Human Rights Council and commissions structure as it exists was very political in nature and included many sensitive areas. He said some of e the commissions had functioned very well, but that some had not. The expectation of Human Rights Council was that these commissions would be more accountable and more responsive to their constituencies in the future. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Russell to compare the previous system to the pre- sent one. Mr. Russell expressed an opinion it might be difficult to do. He said one problem with the present structure had been one of publicity about the various commissions, noting they would have to do a better job in the future of letting the community know of each commisison and its activities and'functions. He felt under the current structure, this potential could be more fully realized. Mr. Obie expressed concern regarding the amount of money budgeted for the commissions, and the seeming lack of interest, noting the various changes in staffing and persons serving on the commissions. He asked how Mr. Russell felt the current structure had assisted the City Council. Mr. Russell replied he was not sure what type of assistance Council ex- pected from the commissions. He also was not sure the commissions had reached a point where they could provide any type of support expected. The one exception might be in lobbying with the State Legislature. He felt the commissions should be advising the City Council more consis- tently on the status of women, minorities, etc., and how they are being affected by what the Ci ty Counci 1 does. He stated there was a need to look at the communications between City Council and the Human Rights e Rights Commission as to what expectations were. One area in which the Human Rights Commission had been been involved with the Council was 6/22/77--6 :,Y9&